Grackle & Oak

Having children does not mean I have to give you special treatment in public. I know, I’m a horrible person for showing up on time, waiting quietly, then telling you, no you can’t cut just because your kid is screaming. 

I hate how many times I’ve heard breeders tell childfree people, “Well, without kids, you have no empathy.”

It is very cowardly to be a Republican. 

There is no position they support that is difficult

It’s easy to support the most common religion.

It’s easy to support rich people & corporations.

It’s easy to abuse the poor.

It’s easy to abuse minorities.

It’s easy to oppose abortion.

It’s easy to cut taxes.

It’s easy to vilify criminals

It’s just goddamn easy to be evil.

 It is hard to support less common religions, especially when they are not your own.

It is hard to oppose rich people and corporations – they tend to buy influence.

It is hard to protect the poor, because those that have must choose to sacrifice for others.

It is hard to protect minorities, because unless you are one, you have no goddamn idea how hard it is.

It is hard to support abortion, because it requires empathy and objectivity.

It is hard to raise taxes, because people hate giving their money away.

It is hard to heal criminals, because it is profitable just locking them up.

I forget just how stupid the human race is. Go look at the clickbait on any mainstream site. That’s what gets the most energy. That kind of drivel. Just ugh. How the fuck have we not wiped ourselves out?

I like that people express themselves, but I get kinda annoyed when kink, fetish, lust, and deviance all get used as synonyms. They aren’t.

In the most clinical of terms:

A kink is something unusual that arouses.

A fetish is arousal linked in an extreme degree to something.

Lust is just desire, not arousal per se

Deviance is somewhat subjective as it means outside of norm, and norms are always changing.

For example thick black glasses. Them as a kink is being turned on by seeing them on someone, even outside a sexual situation. Fetish would be when the glasses themselves can engender arousal. While deviance would be decades ago being turned on by someone in glasses when the norm was galsses = ugly. Now, with nerd / geek / atl culture being more mainstream as well as proliferation of glasses-wearing people, it is no longer a norm than anyone in glasses is ugly. So the deviance now may be rejecting anyone in glasses as ugly.

So again, I’m happy people are all about the freaky, but please people, please, get the vocab correct.

There was a person, Harold, that worked at the Post Office near my grandmother’s house that lived alone, sometimes dressed in ladies clothing and when so preferred to be called Hortense. He didn’t do it often, but a few times a year he’d come in to work as Hortense, not Harold, and everyone in this tiny little town didn’t freak out. He never had his home or car vandalized.  

I always thought this was odd - not gender fluidity, the whole town of arch-conservative people not freaking out about this.

Then I realized that Harold had made himself a safe outsider. He was well established at the Post Office before he ever appeared as Hortense. He only went to work as Hortense, he never went grocery shopping or any other sort of errand. He was quiet.

The town’s conditional tolerance is terrifying to me. What if he had male guests stay overnight? What if he went to the Wal-Mart as Hortense? What if he was just a bit more visible? 

That tiny Southern town full of, lets be frank, rednecks, was ok with a trans person, so long as that person stayed in a box that the town could avoid if they wanted. THAT is the tolerance of the arch-conservative. You can be any way you want, just don’t do it around me, be able to influence my life, nor be too obvious. Of course, this is clearly intolerance, but spun in a way that in their minds, those rednecks weren’t close-minded jerks, hell no, they’re downright christian in their acceptance of good, quiet, boat non-rocking Harold.

I can’t stand it when I hear a male say a woman’s outfit is “distracting.” 

1. Males are still primary drivers of fashion, so even professional attire will draw the eye to cleavage & exposed legs - look at the mocking of pantsuits as to proof why simple head to toe professional dress is IMPOSSIBLE for an adult female. She’s either dressing suggestively or is asexual and / or hostile. So fuck you, she didn’t ask for this, she’s having to play the damn game that exposes her.

2. In casual attire, unless it is the dead of winter, women again are expected to be exposed. Look at the height of shorts for males & females, look at the exposure of arms for males & females - same store, just compare the male clothes to the female clothes. So again, can’t win. 

3. Please note how we treat entertainers, specifically, tv & movie entertainers. Males can be overweight and arrive to award functions in sports jerseys and not be vilified for being too casual.  The first question a reporter usually asks a female is who / what she’s wearing - and she better look goddamn flawless or she will be vilified for not being professional.

The color of night has changed again.  

In my youth, it was the harsh blue oblongs that often buzzed and crackled. Then, sometime along the way, night changed to amber, in perfect little domes clustering like grapes. Now, LED bars of a bright blue-white appear, creeping over neighborhoods that can afford them; standing over dwellings that demand even the light that shines when the humans are gone be green.  

The coldest light yet, cool to the touch and without any arcing, any organic imperfection showing the struggle to beat back darkness through current, not flame. Simple, efficient, as inhuman as plastic, the new color of night is pitiless, stoic, and implacable.